The Official Costume Thread - - - - - - - - - Part 18

[moviedoors]

Maybe you should read the first line of my post.

Hey you got me there. Sorry. Though I'm still completely and utterly unconvinced that this is anything other than excuse making for the classic Jor-El look.

 

[moviedoors]

Kurosawa is right about one thing, this project is a product of the Siegel/Shuster lawsuit. That isn't really debatable. They had no intention on moving forward with another Superman film until the lawsuit forced their hand on the matter.

If anything, that could be a blessing in disguise. If we get another quality Superman film, does it matter under what circumstances it came together?

In Snyder and Goyer's case though, both have expressed doubts in the past as to how to approach Superman but I like them both and I'm sure they'll give it their all.


Here are their previous quotes on Superman:

http://www.slashfilm.com/david-goyer-in-2006-explains-why-he-wouldnt-ever-be-good-to-write-superman/

“In the case of Blade, he is acting heroically, but the rest of the world thinks he’s a vigilante. As is the case with Batman. … I don’t think I’d ever be good to write Superman because it is the opposite… [the interviewer says "he's angst free"] Yeah. And I wouldn’t know the angle because I’m so angst ridden so I wouldn’t know what to do with a character like that.”

Ah, but in subsequent interviews, it sounds like Goyer found his angle, and that angle was good enough to get Nolan involved. That angle, plus having Nolan on board, could have gone a long way towards bringing Zakk over too. I think most creative people have moments like that. You're not terribly interested or what your working on isn't inspiring you, and then BAM, that one idea clicks into place and you have to do it.

But now we're all into total speculation. I'm eager for the film to get here just so we can finally get some words on the backstory of the project. I'm just dying to know what Goyer pitched Nolan.

 

[Scarlet Spider]

Ah, but in subsequent interviews, it sounds like Goyer found his angle, and that angle was good enough to get Nolan involved. That angle, plus having Nolan on board, could have gone a long way towards bringing Zakk over too. I think most creative people have moments like that. You're not terribly interested or what your working on isn't inspiring you, and then BAM, that one idea clicks into place and you have to do it.

But now we're all into total speculation. I'm eager for the film to get here just so we can finally get some words on the backstory of the project. I'm just dying to know what Goyer pitched Nolan.

Best thing IMO about having Nolan as a producer, he'll hopefully be able to run interference for Snyder and protect him from studio executives. Just like Bryan Singer was able to do for Matthew Vaughn on First Class.

That's what a good producer is for. To protect his director from the studio and Nolan certainly has the clout with the studio at the moment to do so.

 

[moviedoors]

I agree with you on this. However even you can understand that certain changes don't always jive with a dedicated fan.

Sure, the core has to be there, but my definition of those core elements doesn't extend to "every last detail of only the run I like" like certain people here.

For example, the Jack Reacher adaptation. I just started reading the books, and yeah, Cruise doesn't fit the physical description at all. But I'm okay with that as long as he gets the methodical, clinical way that character actually solves his problems done. I'm okay with making the character a scalpel instead of a hammer.

Or say, John Carpenter's The Thing. It takes elements from the Howard Hawks version and large elements from Campbell's short story, but it ran it's own direction with it. I'm fine with all of that too. I got one hell of movie out of filmmaker being willing to not be beholden to the source.

One more: author Dan Simmons recently started posting a 60 page scriptment he wrote for a never-to-be-produced remake of the Twilight Zone episode "Death Ship." I always liked that episode quite a bit, but what Simmons did was take literally one idea from that episode and he wrote something completely different with it. The plot isn't the same, the characters aren't the same, the mystery isn't the same. It's virtually unrecognizable as "Death Ship." It doesn't even have the same title (His new name: "Timequake World"). But you know what? It's better. Way, way better.

 

[Krumm]

Yes I did look and unsurprisingly found nothing. You're the one making a completely unfounded assertion so it's up to you to prove it.

To be honest it sounds like the sort of new age BS that anybody with any learning or knowledge of science would laugh at.

Maybe you should read the first line of my post too or has your scientific education taught you to cherry pick the answer you want from the answers you need - doesn't sound like the scientific method to me.

And it's not new age BS. Seeing as you're such a scientist, I assume you've never stepped foot in any analytical art or literature class. Color meanings have been used for centuries. It's why Kings wore purprle, roses are given on Valentine's day, people are green with envy or are known as a "greenhorns." They actually have scientific studies on how color affects your mood -- now scientific studies tend to be a dime a dozen often contradict each other but color meaning is based on precedent which is hard to disprove.

And again, color symbolism isn't meant to slap people in the face. People aren't meant to sit in an audience going, "Oh my God, Jor-El is wearing Green for nature and Yellow for intellect, obviously." It is meant to be there to enrich a story, something that is meant to be pulled out only upon analysis.

And again, I have no preference as to what Jor-El wears but to say that green has no meaning and therefore doesn't makes sense for him to wear is ignorant. That's not saying that S&S picked that color purposely but that doesn't mean the color doesn't hold a meaning. I mean Superman has become a Christ allegory despite the fact that they were Jewish.

 

[tomk]

Maybe you should read the first line of my post too or has your scientific education taught you to cherry pick the answer you want from the answers you need - doesn't sound like the scientific method to me.

And it's not new age BS. Seeing as you're such a scientist, I assume you've never stepped foot in any analytical art or literature class. Color meanings have been used for centuries. It's why Kings wore purprle, roses are given on Valentine's day, people are green with envy or are known as a "greenhorns." They actually have scientific studies on how color affects your mood -- now scientific studies tend to be a dime a dozen often contradict each other but color meaning is based on precedent which is hard to disprove.

And again, color symbolism isn't meant to slap people in the face. People aren't meant to sit in an audience going, "Oh my God, Jor-El is wearing Green for nature and Yellow for intellect, obviously." It is meant to be there to enrich a story, something that is meant to be pulled out only upon analysis.

And again, I have no preference as to what Jor-El wears but to say that green has no meaning and therefore doesn't makes sense for him to wear is ignorant. That's not saying that S&S picked that color purposely but that doesn't mean the color doesn't hold a meaning. I mean Superman has become a Christ allegory despite the fact that they were Jewish.

So there's still no link then.

 

[moviedoors]

Best thing IMO about having Nolan as a producer, he'll hopefully be able to run interference for Snyder and protect him from studio executives. Just like Bryan Singer was able to do for Matthew Vaughn on First Class.

That's what a good producer is for. To protect his director from the studio and Nolan certainly has the clout with the studio at the moment to do so.

Exactly. It's why I can't wrap my head around these charges of "sell-out" just because they've slightly tweaked the costume, and done new things with characters who've had evolving looks historically. That's just the creative license that's always been inherent in adaptation at work. If someone doesn't like it, fine. It's the "sellout" charge that's really sticking in my craw.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I'm pretty sure the classic Jor-El costume was colored green because it felt right...because those comics were done to a certain degree by feel and with heart. But this production is not from the heart...it is not art, it is product. And product says black costumes and the latest movie trends are kewl, so you get a sold-out Superman.

This is why I don't expect a giant key or an alien zoo and why I didn't expect trunks on the costume, and why no glasses on Clark and shots of him with a beard looking all emo in Alaska don't surprise me...this is product. It is not art. These people don't give a damn about Siegel and Shuster or Curt Swan or Mort Weisinger or Superman himself, because if they did then then would actually try to learn about the character-particularly when the character was big.

Who on earth has the right to determine what we call art, and what we don't?

Art is completely subjective, and is not defined by whether or not the artist has deviated from the source material.

Someone doing a landscape that is exactly what they see is no more of an artist than someone doing one in charcoal, with a giant dragon on the horizon and the sun dripping into the sea!

Whether or not you like Snyder's style, or the way he is interpreting Superman for this film is irrelevant when we're talking about these kind of labels.

Snyder is an artist.

And if he past films have been anything to go on, this film will look beautiful.

It's just won't look like he lifted it from a design drawn decades ago.

He's lifting it from his imagination. Thinking about what Kryptonians would be wearing on Krypton in the context of THIS STORY.

And he has every right to do it.

I never trust Batman guys with Superman, and Snyder has already proven that he doesn't get the character. Frank Miller's DKR is a slap in the face to Superman, Siegel and Shuster, and Superman fans everywhere. It is a disgusting piece of ****. And Snyder praised it.

First of all, can you tell me where you've read that he praised it? Just for a context of how and where he said it.

Secondly, he hasn't said it's his inspiration for directing this film has he?

So I really don't see what the big deal is.

He's said something good about a comic you don't like.

Doesn't mean he doesn't also like the comics you do like. Even him being 'unfaithful' doesn't show he doesn't like the old stories and the way Superman used to be portrayed... Just that he's doing something new, that he feels will help make the film more successful.

Because at the end of the day, it doesn't matter that one fan is irate because jor-el's costume isn't green and he's not weareing a headband.

It wouldn't matter if a hundred fans felt that way.

All that matters is that when the film comes out, everyone who goes to see it thinks it looks good, and that he stands up next to other characters like Odin. That Krypton looks as good as Azgard did. That it makes people feel like they are in another world... A society similar to ours, but at the same time very different.

It's just got to flow well within the context of the film.

If it doesn't I'll be the first to complain.

People "don't take my arguments seriously" because I am daring to take a critical view of this production. If I was mindlessly slobbering over every detail like a vapid fanboy who is just happy to take the scraps I am given, then more people would agree with me. I'll give the MOS crew credit where it's due and criticism where it's due. And if in the end, if the movie does turn out to be good, then I will admit that I took some things wrong. Because it's not about me, or about other fans. It's about Jerry and Joe and their brilliant creation, Superman. The greatest comic book character of all time and an American icon.

You just insinuated that people who praise a lot of aspects of this film are 'mindlessly slobbering' 'vapid fan boys' happy with any old scraps...

... And you think people don't take you seriously because of your critique of this production?

Don't be oblivious, you know that you posts often come from a sharp and bitter tongue. Your anger is obvious, and you don't make any effort to hold back your opinion or try to make it a little less offensive to those who disagree with you.

 

[Krumm]

So there's still no link then.

A link to what? I provided you a link to color meanings which I assume you read. And I admitted my mistake in the interpretation of green for knowledge unless you didn't re-read my post AGAIN. Here it is, since it seems you're incapable of doing it yourself.

Is this because of the MYTH that geniuses prefer the color green?

You know what? I think I was confusing it with that.

And here is another nugget that you may have missed in your conversation with yourself.

However, in my searches, it turns out Yellow is the color of intellect, which is in Jor-El's original costume. So combined with Green for nature it makes sense.

At this point, I can't help but think you're simply egging me on so I'm gonna end the conversation here.

 

[Krumm]

Hey you got me there. Sorry. Though I'm still completely and utterly unconvinced that this is anything other than excuse making for the classic Jor-El look.

No worries. And I won't argue with that. Colors have meanings is all I was really trying to say.

 

[moviedoors]

No worries. And I won't argue with that. Colors have meanings is all I was really trying to say.

I won't disagree!

 

[Superman_200]

I am all for representing characters properly. But some of the things the fans want are things that don't matter to the story or who the character is.

We have some people here complaining the Jor-El costume is not green.

We have others complaining the costume does not have trunks.

We have others complaining that Clark has a beard.

We have others complaining that Lois Lane has red hair, etc.

I mean, these are seriously minute details. How will the general audience who has not been staring at the candid shots of Crowe for days analyzing every single little detail about the costume notice that he is wearing blue underneath the robe. How will the majority of the audience notice something as small as the curl in Superman's hair. Who could seriously be watching the movie and think, "Hey! Where is Superman's giant key or the mini-heavy key?" or think about how come Crowe's costume is not green? These are such small details that the audience wouldn't even remember, or know it existed in the comic world. I didn't know Jor-El's costume was green. I've read Birthright and Earth One and a couple of comics here and there, and I don't remember Jor-El having a green costume, and I certainly had never heard of a mini-heavy key or a giant key or alien zoo before. The majority of the audience will be very pleased with the movie as long as the story is interesting and the action is good. I don't see why the ones who have read more comics than the audience have these issues with everything about the movie. Isn't it okay for someone to make some changes? I am sure every comic book artists makes changes, why can't the movie writers and producers and directors make any changes? And, who says that the changes will be for the worst?

I mean, isn't it possible that the changes from the comics to the movie will be for the best?

I understand that you guys want to see the character from the comics. I get that, but what I don't get is why you need to see exactly, the very same exact character with every little exact same detail. Some of you want giant keys, and alien zoos, and some want green costumes, some want to see trunks, and want the tone to be light and merry even if it is more campy. But no one has seen the movie yet. Isn't it possible that you may also like the movie much more being more serious and may like the color scheme much more than you anticipate? What if the movie blows you away? Then what?

The changes we can see so far are minor. Some colors have been changed, and there are no trunks. What else do any of you know about the movie? Anything? Have you seen a part of it? Read a script, talked to Goyer and Nolan and Snyder about it? How can you be complaining about what you see in pictures when all you know is that the tone appears to be a bit more serious than you would like? I mean, is that enough to complain? And if the movie had the tone that some of you want, do you actually think it would be a success today?

 

[Krumm]

I am all for representing characters properly. But some of the things the fans want are things that don't matter to the story or who the character is.

We have some people here complaining the Jor-El costume is not green.

We have others complaining the costume does not have trunks.

We have others complaining that Clark has a beard.

We have others complaining that Lois Lane has red hair, etc.

I understand that you guys want to see the character from the comics. I get that, but what I don't get is why you need to see exactly, the very same exact character with every little exact same detail. Some of you want giant keys, and alien zoos, and some want green costumes, some want to see trunks, and want the tone to be light and merry even if it is more campy. But no one has seen the movie yet. Isn't it possible that you may also like the movie much more being more serious and may like the color scheme much more than you anticipate? What if the movie blows you away? Then what?

The changes we can see so far are minor. Some colors have been changed, and there are no trunks. What else do any of you know about the movie? Anything? Have you seen a part of it? Read a script, talked to Goyer and Nolan and Snyder about it? How can you be complaining about what you see in pictures when all you know is that the tone appears to be a bit more serious than you would like? I mean, is that enough to complain? And if the movie had the tone that some of you want, do you actually think it would be a success today?

 

[hopefuldreamer]

I am all for representing characters properly. But some of the things the fans want are things that don't matter to the story or who the character is.

We have some people here complaining the Jor-El costume is not green.

We have others complaining the costume does not have trunks.

We have others complaining that Clark has a beard.

We have others complaining that Lois Lane has red hair, etc.

I mean, these are seriously minute details. How will the general audience who has not been staring at the candid shots of Crowe for days analyzing every single little detail about the costume notice that he is wearing blue underneath the robe. How will the majority of the audience notice something as small as the curl in Superman's hair. Who could seriously be watching the movie and think, "Hey! Where is Superman's giant key or the mini-heavy key?" or think about how come Crowe's costume is not green? These are such small details that the audience wouldn't even remember, or know it existed in the comic world. I didn't know Jor-El's costume was green. I've read Birthright and Earth One and a couple of comics here and there, and I don't remember Jor-El having a green costume, and I certainly had never heard of a mini-heavy key or a giant key or alien zoo before. The majority of the audience will be very pleased with the movie as long as the story is interesting and the action is good. I don't see why the ones who have read more comics than the audience have these issues with everything about the movie. Isn't it okay for someone to make some changes? I am sure every comic book artists makes changes, why can't the movie writers and producers and directors make any changes? And, who says that the changes will be for the worst?

I mean, isn't it possible that the changes from the comics to the movie will be for the best?

I understand that you guys want to see the character from the comics. I get that, but what I don't get is why you need to see exactly, the very same exact character with every little exact same detail. Some of you want giant keys, and alien zoos, and some want green costumes, some want to see trunks, and want the tone to be light and merry even if it is more campy. But no one has seen the movie yet. Isn't it possible that you may also like the movie much more being more serious and may like the color scheme much more than you anticipate? What if the movie blows you away? Then what?

The changes we can see so far are minor. Some colors have been changed, and there are no trunks. What else do any of you know about the movie? Anything? Have you seen a part of it? Read a script, talked to Goyer and Nolan and Snyder about it? How can you be complaining about what you see in pictures when all you know is that the tone appears to be a bit more serious than you would like? I mean, is that enough to complain? And if the movie had the tone that some of you want, do you actually think it would be a success today?

In fairness, I think that whether you judge the changes as minor or major depends entirely on what is most important to you.

I was pro trunks, but I'm able to get over it an except the change, especially as I love the over all look of the suit.

I am very against Lois being ginger, but I will get over it because I love Amy Adams and am excited about what her take on the role will be.

I wasn't expecting Jor-el to be wearing that... But I think it'll look cool onscreen, and I'm not emotionally attached to any particular previous jor-el costume so I'm fine with them coming up with a new one.

And I couldn't give a damn about the beard.

But that's just me.

Some people like Kuro feel very passionately about jor-el's costume. To them, it's not a minor change, it's a major one.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

Edit: Double Post

 

[Dr.]

Keeping critters locked up in cramped cages and aquaria is cruel. Supes is not cruel; he would never have a zoo.

 

[moviedoors]

God, I only vaguely remember the zoo. It's been so long since I read those. Was that a Fortress of Solitude thing?

 

[Lencho01]

Is this fan made or from that new crap DC is putting out! Sorry I have much anger for them. Either way, what is up with the design at his wrists? That just looks weird.

It's a manip of the MOS suit based on this...

http://jerome-k-moore.deviantart.com/gallery/25226907#/dp04nz

The wrists are based on Superman's first suit...

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~ug02/yeung/actioncomics/cover.html

 

[El Payaso]

I am all for representing characters properly. But some of the things the fans want are things that don't matter to the story or who the character is.

We have some people here complaining the Jor-El costume is not green.

We have others complaining the costume does not have trunks.

We have others complaining that Clark has a beard.

We have others complaining that Lois Lane has red hair, etc.

I mean, these are seriously minute details. How will the general audience who has not been staring at the candid shots of Crowe for days analyzing every single little detail about the costume notice that he is wearing blue underneath the robe. How will the majority of the audience notice something as small as the curl in Superman's hair. Who could seriously be watching the movie and think, "Hey! Where is Superman's giant key or the mini-heavy key?" or think about how come Crowe's costume is not green? These are such small details that the audience wouldn't even remember, or know it existed in the comic world. I didn't know Jor-El's costume was green. I've read Birthright and Earth One and a couple of comics here and there, and I don't remember Jor-El having a green costume, and I certainly had never heard of a mini-heavy key or a giant key or alien zoo before. The majority of the audience will be very pleased with the movie as long as the story is interesting and the action is good. I don't see why the ones who have read more comics than the audience have these issues with everything about the movie. Isn't it okay for someone to make some changes? I am sure every comic book artists makes changes, why can't the movie writers and producers and directors make any changes? And, who says that the changes will be for the worst?

I mean, isn't it possible that the changes from the comics to the movie will be for the best?

I understand that you guys want to see the character from the comics. I get that, but what I don't get is why you need to see exactly, the very same exact character with every little exact same detail. Some of you want giant keys, and alien zoos, and some want green costumes, some want to see trunks, and want the tone to be light and merry even if it is more campy. But no one has seen the movie yet. Isn't it possible that you may also like the movie much more being more serious and may like the color scheme much more than you anticipate? What if the movie blows you away? Then what?

The changes we can see so far are minor. Some colors have been changed, and there are no trunks. What else do any of you know about the movie? Anything? Have you seen a part of it? Read a script, talked to Goyer and Nolan and Snyder about it? How can you be complaining about what you see in pictures when all you know is that the tone appears to be a bit more serious than you would like? I mean, is that enough to complain? And if the movie had the tone that some of you want, do you actually think it would be a success today?

Not only changes are possible but they have happened for every single superhero movie ever made.

 

[Superman_200]

Not only changes are possible but they have happened for every single superhero movie ever made.

They have to be. If they made a Superman movie today with all of the elements that some of the purists are looking for it would alienate so many people that it would probably be a huge failure. If all the reviews start comic out and we see people saying there is a Krypto, Superboy, or giant keys, alien zoo's, a George Reeves type Superman, dated, etc. it would put a lot of people off. If they include so many of the campy, fantastical elements from the Golden Age Superman in a movie today and the look of it is also so traditional, it might turn out to be as campy as the Adam West Batman. That wouldn't please the majority of the audience, it would most likely turn away the majority of the audience.

 

[El Payaso]

I'm pretty sure the classic Jor-El costume was colored green because it felt right...because those comics were done to a certain degree by feel and with heart. But this production is not from the heart...it is not art, it is product. And product says black costumes and the latest movie trends are kewl, so you get a sold-out Superman.

This is why I don't expect a giant key or an alien zoo and why I didn't expect trunks on the costume, and why no glasses on Clark and shots of him with a beard looking all emo in Alaska don't surprise me...this is product. It is not art. These people don't give a damn about Siegel and Shuster or Curt Swan or Mort Weisinger or Superman himself, because if they did then then would actually try to learn about the character-particularly when the character was big.

Curious.

I'd swear that Superman comic books were not drawn to be exposed at Louvre or any kind of museum. They were made to be sold and make money out of them. And that's why they put those vibrant colors and cool powers: to sell.



I don't expect giant keys or alien zoos for the same reason I don't expect Bat-mite or Mxyzptlk. They're not very good ideas to start with, and they surely wouldn't work as well as they work in comics.

 

[Kurosawa]

So you freely admit you were only agreeing that green is a scientist's color because it brings it closer to the source, not because of the actual merits of that particular line of thought. Gotcha!



Not even remotely. You're insulting. End of discussion.


The Dark Knight Returns is brilliant. I like Superman. Go ahead. Be a cliche and say I'm not a real fan.


Prove it. Put up, or shut up. And sorry, Synder liking The Dark Knight Returns doesn't count as proof. I like The Dark Knight Returns. I was under the impression that quite a few comic fans liked The Dark Knight Returns. Go ahead. Insult all of us.

I think anyone who would say the Dark Knight Returns is brilliant has very different tastes in comics and a very different tolerance for seeing Superman beaten and humiliated than I do. I personally hate Frank Miller's work and I hate his treatment of Superman in that disgusting series. If it wasn't for the even more sickening Dark Knight Strikes Again and it's treatment of Dick Grayson, I would say it was the worst Batman story of all time. Both of those books make me sick. I don't give a damn how much praise they got and how many people like them. I don't like them.

No, the studio heads care only about money and not the character (I'm really sick of the vague, meaningless "Hollywood" term. It's way too broad and imprecise). It's their job to make money. We don't get movies unless those studio heads run their business well. That does not however necessarily extend to the actual filmmakers. Sometimes it does. I just refuse to accept that everyone involved in this production, from Nolan, to Synder, to Goyer, are just being a bunch of ****es. That is an unfounded sentiment. Nolan obviously only does projects he cares about, and he's in the unique position of not being messed with by studio heads because his vision makes them lots of money. There's no need to mess with him. At this point, WB will let him do whatever he wants. Goyer's proven it too on his front, and he's a giant nerd. Synder's last couple didn't do so hot, but it's obvious WB likes him and they let him take risks. No matter what you think of Snyder as a filmmaker (and I don't like all his movies either), I don't think he's ever made a movie insincerely. Sucker Punch wasn't any good, but I still believe Snyder meant it with every bone in his body (you win some, you lose some). That's also not to mention that every movie he's made has been super geeky genre fare to its core. I don't think it's out of line to think this guy was probably pretty damn happy to get offered the ultimate superhero property. I'm sure he's read a couple issues of Superman. Who cares if his cred isn't up to snuff in the eyes of some maniacal uber fan like Kurosawa?

And bring on the way-out-there Superman movie. I don't care if it pisses off the fanboys. Good. All I care about is whether or not you do something interesting with the characters and tell a good story. That's it. If being faithful gets me a good movie, great! If changing things gets me a good movie, great.

I believe comics are art and the intentions of the original creators should be respected at all times. To me, being faithful and reverential to the source material should be priority #1 and any failure of that is an insult to the creators and the character. I don't want to see a Zack Snyder/David Goyer/Chris Nolan created character with Superman's name attached to it. I want Superman to be himself, and all evidence points to the fact that most people want Superman to be himself as well.

Ah, but in subsequent interviews, it sounds like Goyer found his angle, and that angle was good enough to get Nolan involved. That angle, plus having Nolan on board, could have gone a long way towards bringing Zakk over too. I think most creative people have moments like that. You're not terribly interested or what your working on isn't inspiring you, and then BAM, that one idea clicks into place and you have to do it.

But now we're all into total speculation. I'm eager for the film to get here just so we can finally get some words on the backstory of the project. I'm just dying to know what Goyer pitched Nolan.

We will see. I have an idea of what it is, and IF I am right, then it is nothing particularly new or interesting. Goyer is no Grant Morrison, that's for certain. Because what he is doing in the comics is what the future should hold for Superman. That's how the image of Superman as an establishment stooge that Miller codified in DKR can be broken: by bringing back the Superman who bent and broke the rules, and who fought for the common man. In fact, I'd take Grant's t-shirt and jeans costume over the Snyder unitard with the arrows pointing at the crotch. At least the jeans and shirt costume was based on one of Shuster's early designs. Of course, at the same time, if you can buy most of it at the GAP, it really doesn't count as a superhero costume.

They shouda just stuck with the classic but we all knew there was no way in hell they would do that.

First of all, can you tell me where you've read that he praised it? Just for a context of how and where he said it.

http://www.slashfilm.com/zack-snyder-interested-in-the-dark-knight-returns-movie/

Curious.

I'd swear that Superman comic books were not drawn to be exposed at Louvre or any kind of museum. They were made to be sold and make money out of them. And that's why they put those vibrant colors and cool powers: to sell.



I don't expect giant keys or alien zoos for the same reason I don't expect Bat-mite or Mxyzptlk. They're not very good ideas to start with, and they surely wouldn't work as well as they work in comics.

Actually, the giant zoo and Mxyzptlk are both great ideas, and Mxy was created by Jerry Siegel, so there is no more legitimate source for a Superman character than Superman's creator.

And it doesn't matter that comics were created to be sold. Comics are art. Period. Most classic painters weren't working for free, either. I don't care that this movie is being made to make money, what does irk me is that I know it's only being made because of a ******** lawsuit that would have never come to be had DC/WB not given the Siegel and Shuster families as good a deal as they deserved in the first place. Now there's a scumbag lawyer (redundant, I know) involved and they might not ever get Superman straightened out. I might be stuck for years with Superman wearing that Jim Lee monstrosity and Lois sleeping with some *****e unless they get it settled. And that pisses me off.

 

[hopefuldreamer]

http://www.slashfilm.com/zack-snyder-interested-in-the-dark-knight-returns-movie/

In the context of a Watchmen panel I guess I can see why he would have said it. The two ideas have a lot in common, both being set in a world where heroes have been outlawed and most of them have retired.

It was something he mentioned once, a very long time ago, long before he ever thought he'd be directing Superman. I don't think it has much impact on this movie. 1. Because Goyer wrote the story and 2. Because we know enough of the plot to know that it is NOTHING like the Dark Knight Returns.

I mean, I have to admit that when I first heard Snyder's name I wasn't thrilled... because i'm genuinely worried about how dark and gritty they will go with Superman... but i've seen a few interviews that made me like him a lot more.

 

[El Payaso]

I think anyone who would say the Dark Knight Returns is brilliant has very different tastes in comics and a very different tolerance for seeing Superman beaten and humiliated than I do. I personally hate Frank Miller's work and I hate his treatment of Superman in that disgusting series. If it wasn't for the even more sickening Dark Knight Strikes Again and it's treatment of Dick Grayson, I would say it was the worst Batman story of all time. Both of those books make me sick. I don't give a damn how much praise they got and how many people like them. I don't like them.

No problem there.

But it's hilarious that you state that if someone likes Miller's TDKR, then he doesn't know anything about/hates Superman. That's pure infantile generalization. Get over the fact that people can like Superman and Frank Miller at the same time.

I believe comics are art and the intentions of the original creators should be respected at all times. To me, being faithful and reverential to the source material should be priority #1 and any failure of that is an insult to the creators and the character. I don't want to see a Zack Snyder/David Goyer/Chris Nolan created character with Superman's name attached to it. I want Superman to be himself, and all evidence points to the fact that most people want Superman to be himself as well.

So please expand on your evidence of Snyder/Goyer/Nolan NOT following the intentions of the original creators. Because lack of trunks or a different design barely count.

Hulk was supposed to be grey. Stan Lee decided to be green because of a technical problem. It's that simple. The original creators also make adjustments.

Actually, the giant zoo and Mxyzptlk are both great ideas, and Mxy was created by Jerry Siegel, so there is no more legitimate source for a Superman character than Superman's creator.

And beats me how is that you think legitimate and good idea are the same thing.

There is a Zebra Batman and Batman having color suits, one for each day of the week. That's legitimate. And God how awful ideas they are.

And it doesn't matter that comics were created to be sold. Comics are art. Period.

It doesn't matter that movies were created to be sold. Movies are art. Period.

Most classic painters weren't working for free, either. I don't care that this movie is being made to make money, what does irk me is that I know it's only being made because of a ******** lawsuit that would have never come to be had DC/WB not given the Siegel and Shuster families as good a deal as they deserved in the first place.

Haha. So making it for one reason is okay, but for the other reason is wrong? How come?

Artists have been payed, requested and even forced to create, and that has nothing to do with the results.

Now there's a scumbag lawyer (redundant, I know) involved and they might not ever get Superman straightened out. I might be stuck for years with Superman wearing that Jim Lee monstrosity and Lois sleeping with some *****e unless they get it settled. And that pisses me off.

Mh. So, you don't have any idea of what movie is going to be like? You just know about early motivations and comics and yet you have the nerve to pre-judged a movie that's barely starting to be made.

 

[EML420]

Superman doesnt have trunks in the the newly relaunched Superman comic books so if MOS doesnt have them is that not being loyal to the book?¿